Atheist Republicans: Supporting a Party That Hates Them

At least the LCR actually support gay rights. The truly vile ones are GOProud, who just rubberstamp everything in the party platform while constantly attacking all gay rights activists.

It is possible to be a Republican without really supporting the party. I’m a Republican, and a moderately liberal atheist. Why? Because I live in an area where Republicans are more likely to be elected than Democrats. Or more specifically, wingnut right-wing conservatives are more likely to be elected than anybody that a rational person would call moderate (or even moderately conservative). I almost always vote for the most liberal candidate in the general elections. But if I were registered as a Democrat, I’d have no say in the Republican primaries… and that is where the actual candidate is usually determined.

As a Republican, at least my vote can count towards encouraging more moderate candidates.

As a fiscal conservative (but social liberal), I find myself constantly frustrated by both parties. The GOP has completely lost touch with reality but there is really no viable option for small government. Meanwhile the Democrats accomplish some of the social progress I crave but grow the government and spend like crazy. My biggest fear is a giant, powerful government which is then handed over to religious nuts who want to police everyone’s morals.

This has been a pretty big deal for my family for a long, long time. Most of my [close] family is best described as agnostic/deistic/uncaring. With the exception of me, though, they are rather right-wing on a lot of things. They do pick and choose (as one should when it comes to politics) but they definitely have a lot of “Republican” leanings (especially with Fiscal Conservatism). 

I know my grandfather drinks a bit too much of the Fox News punch and is a hardline Republican despite not really have a strong religious preference. My aunt is a small business owner and is convinced of many of the same arguments that the Democrats are attacking small business owners. She is a lesbian and is married to her wife and lives in Oregon, but gay rights seem to be the least of her worries (she often complains that the Democrats have done little to improve anything and I can only full-heartily agree). 

But for the rest of them, especially my parents, it has turned into voter apathy and that is scary. Voters split between the parties seem to just not vote because they cannot pick and choose and the states control who gets onto the ballet. My parents are really against illegal immigration (they have no problem with legal immigrants) and the so-called welfare-system. They seem to just not vote or do throw-away votes to the Green Party because no one represents them (let me point out that they are not Ron Paul fiscal conservatives). 

Meanwhile, as the black sheep Democratic Socialist (in the European sense), I’ve just completely given up. And it is because no one represents me. 

It seems the republican party could use a history lesson or at least a reminder that this bat sh!t crazy antics are not what the party was founded on. I would think that atheist republicans might support the libertarian movement, but I don’t know. I am not an expert in anything but my opinion. I prefer the states being self governed and a federal govt for defense and upholding the constitution. I do believe free enterprise is stifled when the govt becomes too large (like now). I just wish my vote would stop counting for the democratic party when I don’t vote republican. I still can’t believe in a country so big and so diverse that we constantly settle for 2 main choices. That can’t be a fair representation of America. **just my thoughts based on no real knowledge, please be kind in any responses**

Funny how that stuff “matters more politically” when you’re not a woman whose right to choose what happens to her own body is constantly under threat, or a person trying to marry their same-sex love of their life.

It would be the same even if I were. Issues that impact everyone over issues that impact smaller groups should be prioritized when all else is equal.

And let’s be realistic. The “right to choose” really isn’t in danger, and gay rights are inevitable. If you’re voting on those issues in 2012 (assuming youre not in a state with a ballot question), youre misreading the political climate.

I think the strength of the two party system is why so many Americans (not just atheists) support a party or candidates with whom they disagree on important issues. They choose what they see as the lesser evil.

They have driven out almost all rational and moderate people over the last 20 to 30 years? It’s gotten so bad that seasoned moderate Republicans are becoming disillusioned and don’t want to go on. What makes you think you are any different? Better to let them crash and burn. It can’t be long.

Republican politicians can bad-mouth me all they want. They still offer to cut atheists’ taxes, deregulate our businesses and let us buy all the guns and ammo we want, which shows that they don’t consider us a threat to society. I also have no problem with the patriarchal aspects of conservative policies.

Ironically my reading of George Lakoff’s theory of family metaphors to explain political orientations helped me to realize that the Strict Father metaphor operating in conservatives, and to some extent in libertarians, comes closer to representing my interests than the Nurturant Parent metaphor operating in liberals and progressives. Now, Lakoff didn’t intend for his unified theory of conservatism to make conservatism sound good; he clearly finds it distasteful, even pathological, despite his claim that his Nurturant Parent world view gives him superior “empathy” to identify emotionally with others’ points of view. But in my case Lakoff makes a better argument for conservatism than many conservatives have done. 

Lakoff also inadvertently advertises Strict Fathers’ strengths when he complains that some rich conservatives a generation ago set up think tanks, bought media outlets and hired intellectual to reframe public policy debates in ways favorable to conservatives. This happened under the noses of the Nurturant Parent dreamers, utopians and theorists like Lakoff, and resulted in a situation which Lakoff finds dismaying. 

One, he acknowledges that at least some Strict Fathers know how to make a lot of money. Two, he points out that they understand the importance of ideas and framing, despite stereotypes about conservatives’ anti-intellectualism. Three, he shows that these Strict Fathers know how to establish practical long-range goals, they can figure out the means to get from here to there, and they display the self-discipline and perseverance needed to carry out their plans. 

These guys have a lot going for them, don’t they? It makes you wonder why Lakoff doesn’t hold them up as role models instead of enemies. If you want to accomplish something difficult, instead of wishing hard like a Nurturant Parent, study successful Strict Fathers’ examples  and try working hard like they do instead. If more people displayed those cognitive abilities, we might have a better functioning society.

Good blog post; hope it gets some decent discussion.

Often we have to talk issue by issue to see what we and others really think about left/right stuff. (I often find myself in the middle.)

While there is plenty of talk about left/right, sometimes there doesn’t seem to be hardly any talk about Authoritarian/Libertarian positions. I’m not advocating for one or the other, just more discussion about the pros, cons, and ramifications of either direction.

Oh boy….

1) True. Can’t argue with that.

2) True. However, being “constructionist” to me makes about as much sense as being “fundamentalist”. I’d prefer to think that the entire notion of government and society has progressed and refined itself with layers much earned nuance over the last two hundred and fifty years. Its an “evolution”. Being a strict constructionist, in my book, puts you in the “batshit crazy” pile.

3) I have yet to see an atheist or gay person, or a pro-choice person, change *anything* in the GOP. They haven’t yet, and they’ve been trying for decades now. If anything, it has become worse – not better. As to intolerance from your fellow conservatives: you haven’t been hanging around Hot Air and like-minded places lately, have you? Or, if you have, do you have a reading problem? Most of them would call you a RINO and, I am willing to bed, also consider you something less than human. Republicans *do* largely hate us. It’s fairly clear that they think we are immoral criminals, and they absolutely do not hide the fact that this is exactly what they believe.

I’m going to answer your other comment below this one as well where you say:

“And let’s be realistic. The “right to choose” really isn’t in danger, and gay rights are inevitable. If you’re voting on those issues in 2012 (assuming youre not in a state with a ballot question), youre misreading the political climate.”

Really? If it weren’t for atheists, feminists, and gay activists making noise about it, it would just “happen” eventually? And you think if we all just stopped talking about it now, it’ll just “happen” anyway? We can all happily go home now because it’s an inevitability?

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your arguments in any way whatsoever. The fact is: you may be a conservative who values small government, low taxes, and doesn’t have much to hang on the liberal “humanist” agenda, but being an atheist mean you’re not welcome in the Republican Party.

Something wasn’t adding up about your post because, frankly, it sounds like you think the GOP is full of the David Brooks of years gone past. Well, I looked it up and, lo and behold! you live in Massachusetts. I understand where you’re coming from but I have something to tell you that may come as a slight shock to you: mainstream GOP people don’t think that you qualify as a real GOP Republican – just based on your geographical location. Of course you’ll tell the GOP people around you that you’re an atheist, but would you do the same in, say, Alabama? Mississippi? Kentucky?

Maybe you would, but I sure as hell wouldn’t.

My guess is that no matter what you say, no matter if you agree 99.99999% with them on everything they say except for God, they’ll still call you a RINO.

The right to choose actually is in danger.  Many states are doing their best to limit the right to an abortion making it very difficult for providers to work there.  So although there technically is the right to choose, in effect it is practically impossible.  My personal fear is that contraception is next.

Conservatism has taken on the character of a revolt of the beta males. Progressive government allows women to “marry the state” for  support, like the fictional Julia, at beta male taxpayers’ expense; enables women to reject beta males as lovers and marriage prospects so that they can indulge their appetites for hookups with bad boys and cads;  and enforces fraudulent paternity suits against the taxpaying beta male population to support these women’s bastard children fathered by irresponsible men.

Productive beta males who have had enough of this nonsense realize that the Republican Party comes closer to representing their interests than the Democrats. They want politicians to reverse these progressive policies so that they can make a livelihood more easily and find women to marry them and form families. Restricting access to contraception and abortion would help this process by forcing women to exert more self-discipline over their sexuality. 

I am not a Republican, so I have to admit that your comment was quite enlightening to me. As an atheist, I’m ashamed that my fellow non-believers gave you grief for not following the so-called “standard.” Thank you for teaching me about a group of which I should be more open-minded, and about a group of which I should be more critical. I’m glad you’ve found your own political niche.

–A Kindly Atheist

 Perhaps the term “atheism” is being conflated here with the terms “rationalism” and “skepticism,” and other concepts that refer to the application of empiricism and logic (which are often associated with atheism); so in that sense, perhaps it is not that relevant to connect one’s stance on these political and social issues with one’s belief in a supreme being.  However, it is important to remember that the *vast* majority of arguments made against homosexuality and abortion (as well as other issues) are based on religious doctrine; I have heard very few arguments against those issues based on scientific rationale. 

In fact, your claims about the negative health issues associated with homosexuality and abortion are only exacerbated by religion.  Legal abortions performed by a doctor in a sterile environment are far safer than a back-alley abortion done with a coat hanger, which would be the norm if Roe v. Wade were overturned.  And the Catholic church’s stance against condom use is clearly detrimental regarding the spread of disease through sexual intercourse, whether homosexual or heterosexual.  So I find your claims to be specious at best, if not downright fallacious.

I as an atheist Republican for a while. Sometimes I find that hard to believe, as I am now so far left that I find Democrats entirely too conservative. There were a lot of things that contributed to that change, but it started with the realization that the Republican party is hostage to the far-right religious whackos and completely full of shit when they talk about fiscal conservatism. 

I was a Republican long before I admitted to myself that I was an atheist, so it was easy to find reasons to stay in the party and took a while to realize why this was completely incompatible with my personal thoughts. 

When I was  a Republican, however, it was largely because of fiscal conservatism (and a diet of a little bit too much Fox News and the Drudge Report). I did not think ballooning the government and raising taxes was a useful activity for our government. I was very, very pro-state’s rights and wanted to let the people decide on such complicated issues as abortion, etc. And of course, in a 2 party system, one always has to compromise on part of their political leanings to support either party. At the time, the church/state violations and socially regressive policies seemed an adequate price to pay for the other issues I cared about. And I also told myself that I could change the party from within.

Thankfully I realized that was a fool’s errand, started doing my own research instead of taking that which was handed to me, and dug deep to discover what I really believed instead of what I wanted to believe to fit in. And now I’m pretty much a socialist. =)

Note that “Republican” does not equal fiscal conservative. Bush was certainly not fiscally conservative, and the label of Republican is starting to indicate (often extreme) social conservatism at the expense of other conservative values, like smaller government and fiscal issues. So please don’t say “fiscal conservatism doesn’t exist because Republicans aren’t all fiscally conservative”… one does not necessarily follow from the other.

I really don’t agree, especially on contraception.  I think you significantly overestimate how much people care about contraception (people really don’t, it’s completely uncontroversial politically).  Abortion’s a trickier issue, for certain, but a lot of it is the battle itself.  Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere – at best, there are two solid votes against it in the current Court makeup, and there’s no way someone with any hostility toward it can get confirmed, never mind nominated.

This entire battle over contraception is really nonexistent.  Those on the right talking about this battle are doing so because it was brought up by their opponents, not because of any actual hostility toward it.  That hostility is instead toward federal funding of contraception, of abortions, and of providers, which is a fiscal issue just as much as a social one.

2) If having consistent law enforced as written is “batshit crazy,” so be it.  I’d like to be able to predict how a law would be enforced, but hey.

3) The reason you don’t see a lot of change is because there’s not a lot of us there.  I can count the atheist Republicans I know of on one hand, and only one of them is in Massachusetts.  We have to stop being afraid of being a Republican first – and that means the atheist movement being more accepting of dissenting viewpoints – before we can make our voices heard.

If you really think conservatives and Republicans *hate* us, you’ve misread the population.  Certainly, there are hardcore Christians who do, this is indisputable.  But this isn’t a Massachusetts thing, but a national one.  There’s a lot of tolerance for dissenting viewpoints within the Republican ranks and within the conservative movement when it comes to both social issues and to beliefs.  It isn’t 1991 when GHWB said that atheists shouldn’t be citizens anymore.  

The GOP does not resemble the David Brooks types much anymore – it’s one of the main reason why I feel more comfortable as a Republican than I would have 10 years ago.  My point of view comes not from Massachusetts Republicans (although I’ve had great relationships, conversations, and coalitions with Massachusetts conservatives of all stripes), but from discussions with people nationwide, with national Republicans, and so on.  You have allowed the concept as pushed by the far left regarding what Republicans are to distort your point of view of Republicans to the point of caricature, unfortunately.

The only things I noticed in this post that seemed to not fit with atheism were the paragraphs that mentioned god. I even know about atheists in my country (Iceland) that do not support the separation of state and church.

“which is a fiscal issue just as much as a social one”

Bullshit.

I wish you well, mikespeir.

Oh, don’t dismiss it so easily, after all “a penny saved is a penny earned”

Or Authoritarian-Libertarian vs rationalist-non dogmatic positions.

There certainly is no far left in the US. There are hardly any socialists in the US either. The Democrats are mostly center-right. Maybe center-left in some issues. The Republicans are far-right nationalists to put them in an international perspective. That’s how far to the right the US political spectrum has shifted.

In other words, the Bogeyman.

What??
I can’t help but notice that beta males = good people, women = irresponsible whores.
Do you honestly think that having access to contraception and abortion makes us go crazy and have careless sex all over the place? So restricting access to contraception and abortion is just a way to keep women well-behaved?
Fuck you.
Now excuse me, I’ve got about ten different guys I want to fuck today. Nbd, I’ll just get a quickie aborsh if I get knocked up. Either that or I’ll sue one of those guys for paternity just because I can. I’m a woman; that’s what I do.

First off, let me say I appreciate the tone of your message — you seem both respectful to opposing viewpoints and sincere in your own convictions.  However, I believe your opinions and the supposed evidence you have found to support them are first and foremost colored by your religious views.  I don’t begrudge you that necessarily — but it seems that you must be hunting for “evidence” that supports your world view, and are willing to disregard the validity of opposing evidence.  I would guess that the “evidence” you are citing is probably posted on some religious website, or other fringe outlet, and not the consensus of the scientific community (which is supported through peer review).

On the other hand, I don’t go out looking for evidence to support my “atheist” view point — and unlike somebody with strong religious convictions, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to change my opinion on something if I found compelling evidence to the contrary.  That is the difference between an empirically-based approach and one influenced by religious dogma.

 Every time I ask someone who says “oh, it’s so baaaaddd for teh womenz!” to provide evidence, I get this exact same answer: “Oh, it’s just too complicated.” No, it’s really not. Either the evidence is there, or it’s not. Links aren’t that hard, or at least authors and study names.

 This is immediately followed by “It’s out there if you look/you’ should do your own research.” As though none of us who care about this have bothered to look at any evidence. I’ve pretty seriously mined peer-reviewed papers for this “evidence,” and thus far have come up with absolutely nothing that was peer-reviewed that hasn’t been debunked (see: breast cancer link for abortions) or without religious bias that says either of these things are inherently bad for women, let alone bad enough to ban.  (I have amazing access to peer-reviewed papers, as well as doctoral thesis, etc. via college research databases that have papers dating back to at least the 70s, many of them unpublished or in limited publication.)

There are definitely medical risks involved with hormonal contraception. It’s just that not having reliable, effective family planning also carries huge risks for both women and children. People who claim to be against contraception because they’re concerned about women’s health never take those risks into account. They essentially feel that if contraception isn’t 100% safe in all circumstances, it’s not worthwhile, because they don’t acknowledge any health benefits of it (and they don’t think the ability to have sex for pleasure is a worthwhile benefit either).

 Agreed. Overall, hormonal birth control has been shown safe and effective; but, as you mention, like all medications there are contraindications and potential side effects (even aspirin has these).  Each user and their physician need to evaluate those risks, of course; but, I’d buy the “but it’s not safe” argument a whole lot more if the same people were screaming about the myriad other drugs that are not 100% safe, either (which, of course, almost nothing is). Anything else is just disingenuous.

 You’re right, women were so much better off when they had no control over when they had children. No doubt that’s why so few of them use contraception and why Planned Parenthood clinics are always empty.

 “I also have no problem with the patriarchal aspects of conservative policies.”

How very, very nice for you.

As a Republican and an atheist, I can say that I vote Republican for the simple reason that I believe the policies a Republican administration and Congress would implement would be better for the nation than the policies the Democratic administration and Senate we currently have.

I can overlook those parts of the Republican platform that invoke god because they are the most difficult to actually enact into concrete policy, and the priorities of the party are such that any attempts to do so would be entirely half-hearted. I’m interested in practical outcomes, and can overlook hyperbole in a written platform to get the outcomes I prefer.

It should also be pointed out that the Democratic party platform also invokes “our God-given potential” and states “there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution”, so it’s not like the Democrats are the party of unbridled secularism, either. Statements of its leaders also betray their willingness to invoke God and the Bible when it suits them (http://theweek.com/article/index/203601/nancy-pelosi-bible-thumper), so it’s not fair to say that the Republican party has a monopoly on such rhetoric.

At this point, pretty much anyone who believes there’s such a thing as a society, and doesn’t pretend we’re all just a bunch of rugged individualists, gets painted as a Commie.

The right in this country has gone far, far down the rabbit hole.

“We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit.”

Now, apply the bullshit filter:

“We affirm that we can’t handle the idea of two guys have buttsecks. We therefore will make it illegal for two guys to have buttsecks, so we can condemn yet one more thing that makes us uncomfortable, and we shouldn’t have to explain it rationally. It is our god-given right to be comfortable. Jesus in the Real America, amen.”

I am an atheist, a woman, a lesbian, and fiscally conservative. I have never voted due to incompatable values with both mainstream parties. There needs to be a legitimate third party that is not simply an extension of the liberal or conservative ones currently in existence. The real irony of the conservative situation is that it takes the government not only ‘into the home’, but into the bedroom and ultimately the mind of a person. It violates far more the individual freedom of a person than the Democrats have by imposing bizarre and ultimately futile projects in a feeble attempt to ‘help’ the less fortunate. There is currently a strange way of looking at politics as though it should be concerned with our personal lives, when in fact it should be concerned only with the impersonal pertaining to economics, foreign policy, and, without infringing on freedom, ensuring freedom. I am well aware of the complication and delicacy of such a balance, but it seems as though no one is trying to keep the balance anymore. Both parties wish to tip the scale to their own, personal opinion. I am unsure if that fully answers your question, so to re-cap: while fiscally conservative, that is the only part of any current politics I agree with, and I do not vote for either party.

So I take it you actually have no evidence and rather than fall on that old book you decided to just say it’s out there.

In reality your just a bigot, hating people because you were told to, because a book tells you too or maybe you just find them icky.

Family planning is more cost-effective than unintended pregnancies.

But then, the GOP is the party that can’t figure out that spending a dollar today to save five in the future is fiscally responsible. If it’s spending, it’s bad, period (unless it’s for weaponry).

 ” but they sure want to take more of my money when I can barely get by on my small disability and low paying job.”

You realize that the Democrats don’t want to raise taxes on low-income people, right? If the Republicans are telling you that, they’re lying.

 Women have all the control in the form of abstinence and Natural Family Planning. They loose control when they become a slave to the pharmaceutical companies, insurance corporations, the government and the medical industry. She then must rely on them to look out for her best interests and then when it fails and leads to increased abortions (an assertion by me, that has not yet been proven but for which there is evidence) for which they must then rely on the government to pay for an abortion by Planned Parenthood in which she may be deceived into thinking that it is her best decision. (Planned Parenthood has proven to be a very deceptive organization, or at least its employees are)  So where in this does she have control?

The pill is listed as  a Group I carcinogen by the World Health Organization and other medical institutions yet it is safe?

Additionally are you going to trust the pharmaceutical industry and its money and power to fulfill the appropriate testing. I’m sorry but I don’t trust that our politicians are not swayed by by the pharamcuetical companies and their dollars to relax restrictions on testing.

In that case, I hope you never end up in a Christian Scientist hospital.

This is what I don’t get. The GOP hasn’t actually practiced small government, lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, laissez faire social policy, or strict constructionism for many decades. I don’t understand why people put tribe loyalty over reasoned conclusions, but I shouldn’t be surprised that atheists do it just about as often as theists.

It’s just as bad as sticking with a strong democrat loyalty because you think that Obama will suddenly take a left turn after his reelection and become another FDR, LBJ, or Eisenhower. Good luck with the tribal fairy tales.

I think he’s just another chump confusing talking points and banner slogans with what is actually practiced and spelt out in the platform.

You got it all wrong- trickle down will work this time! If at first something doesn’t work, try at again with more money.

Once upon a time, I was a Republican activist. Back when the Elder Bush was president, I joined my town’s GOP committee, ran for municipal office, and campaigned for local GOP candidates (mainly legislators). I was a delegate to GOP conventions (both local and state) a number of times. I stayed at it quite a while before I realized the party I belonged to was going around the bend. A lot of really nutty things were going on in the GOP but since they only gradually built up, I hadn’t noticed them until around 2000 (i.e. the Younger Bush’s first presidential campaign).

Mind you, I was already a committed agnostic by the early 90s when I started. I was what one would call a “fiscal conservative” who did not care about so-called “social issues” like abortion. I was, then, and still am pro-choice and pro-freedom. At the time, especially in my home state of Connecticut, it was not uncommon among my fellow Republicans to be “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” (or FCSL).It was clear by the time the Younger Bush was elected, though, that the GOP had become thoroughly religionistic; that “social issues” had come to the fore; and that FCSLs such as myself were widely being condemned as “RINOs” (Republicans in name only). As the G.W. Bush administration proceeded, it was also clear that, once in power, no one is ever really “fiscally conservative”; government spending went up through his administration in spite of his having a GOP majority in Congress at times, meaning he could not blame this on a hostile Congress.

By 2001 I had resigned from all my GOP positions, and am on record has having done so because the party had taken an irrational, intolerant, and militantly-religionistic turn that I simply could no longer be part of. “Fiscal conservatism” is literally not possible in this country, since spending money is an expression of political power, and everyone who has political power wants to express it as much as s/he can, at all times, and without regard to their campaign promises or espoused “fiscally conservative” philosophy. I was basically told not to let the door hit me on my rear end on my way out … the GOP (both the CT party machine and at a national level) is literally not interested in me any more and I’m happy to leave them to their own devices.

One might ask why I haven’t joined the Democrats. The answer is, in the end, they’re no better. The Democratic party panders to its own constituency of special interests. Individual Democrat candidates and office-holders are every bit as conniving and self-serving as their Republican counterparts. I can no more join them, than I can remain a Republican. The bottom line is, I’m neither Left nor Right and as such am basically unrepresented by anyone holding any office anywhere. I’m a committed Cynicalist who does not trust any politicians, and who has long since stopped believing any of them gave a crap about me or anyone else. Elected officials, the parties, and ideologies don’t represent or support anyone but themselves. The sooner we understand we’re all being plundered, the better off we’ll be.

How can I hope to change the Catholic Church if I don’t belong to it?

So you oppose any drug that’s not 100% safe, right? Or just the ones that let women plan pregnancies?

 “The pill is listed as  a Group I carcinogen by the World Health Organization and other medical institutions yet it is safe?”

[Citation Needed], numbskull.

He’s a religious nutjob. What else do you expect? This is hardly the first time he has demonstrated his nutbaggery.

I agree P. Me thinks Jeff is not a person of reason/atheist. I think he’s full of shit with his thinly-veiled apologies for any of the issues he’s mentioned. As for atheists for the GOP … allow me to para phrase Dan Savage: “Faggots!” (See: http://goo.gl/6Eqms)

“If you don’ t care much about social issues, and care greatly about
lower taxes, smaller government, and strict constructionist judges, the
GOP is your home.”

You do realize that the GOP really isn’t any of that except, perhaps, lowering taxes? That has a caveat that they still like the same spending levels or want to eliminate programs that help people in order to fund things that kill people. Small government? The same small government supported by the GOP that thinks anti-sodomy laws should be constitutional and the government can legislate morality?

Conservatives claim to want personal freedom, but often they push laws that are anything but that.

Anyone who isn’t straight, white, male, evangelical,  and at 250k + a year in income -and yes you should have ALL of these qualities- voting republican is a fool. End of.

I actually agree that they have that right to deny birth control. If you knowingly applied for a job at and then work at what you know to be a religious institution, then you assume responsibility for the result. If you don’t like it, then work somewhere that doesn’t have those limitations. 

I don’t agree that they should do it, but it’s entirely within their rights. It’s not as if they’re firing people for using birth control. That would be a different story.

I am a lifelong out, activist atheist and also a registered Republican.  I vehemently disagree with the national GOP on almost all social issues and have not ever voted for a Republican for president.  But SOMEONE has to show up at the GOP primary and be sane!  We need MORE atheist Republicans, not less.  Otherwise 1 of the 2 major parties will become even more dominated by the crazies than it already is (yes, this is actually possible).  So I exhort my otherwise fiscal conservative atheist brothers and sisters to stick it out in the GOP and help us drag the party back into reality so we can go to the polls and have one more spot on the ballot that a rational person can get behind. 

Hospitals or universities are NOT religious institutions. They don’t even limit their hiring to one faith and they usually receive lots of money from the government.
As such they should not be treated any different than similar secularly owned businesses

Never mind that they don’t actually provide any birth control. They just provide insurance that covers it. Their so-called religious beliefs are never touched, since they don’t have to do anything.

Claudia,
This is why I stopped being a Republican back in 1992, when Bush Sr. openly embraced the Religious Right…back in the days of Ralph Reed & Pat “Culture War” Buchanan and such.  Reagan had done so also but was much more low-key about it.  My parents went for Perot that year and I voted absentee for Clinton (was studying abroad in Germany at the time and picked up my ballot at the US Consulate in Stuttgart).  After the 1992 RNC, I was like “F*ck me, I guess I’m a Democrat now.” (previously a moderate Republican but rather Hawkish on Defense/Foreign Policy but no longer)

Obama has been attending the Annual Prayer Breakfast since he was a Senator. He gave the keynote speech this year describing how Christ would have supported his plan to tax the rich. He quoted from the Gospels, too.

Not sure if this is an actual reply to be as the automated email claims… If not, ignore my reply.

And? I mean, what does this prove? I’m not an Obama supporter, but I’d point out that mentioning his own personal motivation is an order of magnitudeless nutty than codifying it in the party platform.

Atheism just means you don’t believe in God.

It is clear from reading the comments that not all atheists are skeptics, not all atheists are rational, and not all atheists are humanists.    Frankly, I have never understood why a woman would be a Christian or a Republican.  But people do things that don’t make sense to me all the time.  I even do things that don’t make sense to me.  🙂  

 My statement regarding birth control was an example of something that I think has been harmful to women. This doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal. That is just silly. Nor am I trying to impose anything on anyone. I was merely stating an opinion which I have formed based on reason and some evidence.

I do understand that many people believe that limiting your options is equivalent to reducing control but I think this is flawed thinking especially when your options are harmful and you must rely on others to provide you with those options. You loose control as soon as you subjugate yourself to those options because you have, by extension, subjugated yourself to the one that provides that option.

Choosing to be in complete control means choosing to limit yourself. This may sound like nonsense to many, but it is analogous to the philosophy that you can only truly  be free if you live within the limitations of making responsible decisions. If it does sound like nonsense please take the time to think about it with an open mind and on a deeper level.

Because the Catholic Church tenets aren’t up for debate or eligible for change from the masses.  Pun intended.

 Of course, even in the things where he has control, Obama has been kind of a dick. Remember when he was going to have ‘the most transparent administration in history?’ Yeah, not so much. Or his respect for the rule of law? Guess that doesn’t count when it comes to bringing torturers and those who spy on Americans to justice, or when it comes to targeted killings overseas. We could point out how sluggish he’s been in promoting gay rights and immigration reform, or how he’s doubled down on federal enforcement of laws against marijuana even in states where it’s legal.

None of those fall on Congress–he’s just failed to live up to his supposed standards. He’s not the first president to do that, nor will he be the last. And the sad thing is that as much as those things piss me off, he’s still the lesser of two evils.

Which is largely immaterial to my point. Women CHOOSE whether or not to use contraception. This is an expression of reproductive freedom. You apparently do not think they should have that freedom, since you feel the nebulous social ills you refuse to provide evidence for (but we should go do our own research and then we’ll surely agree with you) are so grave as to warrant forcing women to reject safe and effective medical treatment. Yes, that’s pro-freedom, all right–free to have sex the way you think they should or else be pregnant. Aren’t you special?

 Yes sir, choice is obligation. Freedom is slavery. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 The GOP has never supported “small government” for a second, unless you mean “small enough to plant hidden cameras in every bedroom and vagina”. 

 So, you admit that you’re too much of a worthless failure to attract a woman without making women desperate and denying them options.  you support the GOP because, like you, they are incompetent, bigoted asshats. 

I went to the 2012 Texas GOP convention in Ft. Worth. I hid my (lack of) religious beliefs and just played the part because I wanted to do my best to infiltrate the party for Ron Paul. Time and time again I told myself that if these people even knew I was atheist I’d probably be stoned. I assure you I will be going for the Libertarian Party convention next time. 

Women have all the control in the form of abstinence and Natural Family Planning.

Yeah, this confirms what I suspected from your remarks above – you’re a moron. You’re embarrassing yourself – or rather, you would be if you were bright enough to realize it.

Why don’t you toddle off now and contemplate our eternal torment in hell? That should give you no end of pleasure.

When you quote the GOP who want to make clear that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children”, are you arguing being pro-life is incompatible with being an atheist? That makes no sense to me. 

My views are best represented by the Libertarian party so I alwasy cast my vote for them.  I find it very distasteful however, that my party has no chance of winning an election. I am stuck living with a government filled with republicrats who praise jesus on a daily basis and have all of their hands in my pockets, relieving me of my hard earned money.  As an atheist, I have no political home. 

Like you – That is the ‘primary’ reason I am a Republican…to have a vote in the primaries…a moderate or reasonably thinking American has nowhere to turn when one or two rational ideals are jumbled in with a mass of irrational ones that must be accepted as well – moderate individuals who rate a candidate on substance rather than party affiliation are given no other choice. 

I’m so on board with this statement. Personally I could appreciate less gov. Intrusion in all aspects of our lives. Republicans have an empty marketing ploy when they say they are for smaller government. They’ve done quite the opposite once elected. Plus it takes cognitive dissonance of astronomical proportions to proclaim you want smaller government while legislating vaginal probes.

By your logic, we should all grow our own food so we don’t lose control to the farmers, meatpackers, processors, and grocery chains. And if we choose not to do so, it makes us slaves.

Increasing availability of contraception does not lead to an increase in abortions. A desire for reduced fertility leads to both an increase in contraception use (if adequate contraception is available) and an increase in abortions (if adequate contraception is not available).

I still don’t understand how women, LGBT, or lower-income people can support the GOP.  

Divorce health care from employer. Until then, they always have a toe in your health.

 soo… did everyone miss the first sentence implying this is an observation on conservatism and not personally held opinion?  or am I just reading this wrong?

 Yet, if all the non-religious-fundies & RINOs registered Libertarian, we’d have a fighting chance at actually changing the 2-party system which is what’s really screwing our chances at influencing government…

Bear in mind that the Democrat party is hardly the most welcoming source of nurturing for atheists. The recent Gallup poll showed that while only 48% of Republicans would vote for an atheist, only 58% of Democrats would do so.

When 42% of the party membership wouldn’t vote for you under any circumstances, that’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

As a republican and an atheist, I think that there are a few flaws in your logic. One, atheism does not imply approval of gay marriage. While I’m an atheist and I DO NOT personally dislike gays, I think that allowing gays to marry would open a whole can of worms that people generally don’t consider. I believe in the moral fiber of America and I see gay marriage as one of many threats to traditional American society. This isn’t Europe. Two, you assume that atheists don’t want our society to be based on god. “Religion keeps the poor from killing the rich.” While I don’t believe in god, I sure love it that the commoners do. It saves me a lot of trouble.

Even if I wanted religion removed from politics and society (which I don’t), conservatives would be the lesser of two evils. Liberals are too far removed from what is real. For example, I want welfare recipients to be drug tested. I get drug tested for my 6-figure, whte collar job. How, then, is it unfair to expect poor people to do the same?! Also, I’m not racist, but minorities get arrested and jailed more than whites do. It is a FACT. If facts are uncomfortable to you, then this life is not going to be an enjoyable one for you.

Systems of government count far more than the beliefs of the individuals who might be at the helm.  You say you understand how one can desire a conservative form of government and still be an atheist.  And that is exactly why, even though I find their insistence on god and the bible to be annoying and sometimes offensive, I am a republican. 

The republicans, for the most part, follow the doctrine that individuals should be free and that economies should be left alone.  As long as they act to maintain that system of government which our constitution does a pretty good job of creating, then they are a far better choice.  And when the only other party is openly against economic liberty then there is only one choice. 

There is no such thing as a separation between economic freedom and social freedom.  You either are free to act in your own best interests or you are not.  The democrats operate under the belief that anything you do is subject to their approval.  They substitute the words “common good” in place of “god” and they then regulate your life to the point of forcing you to buy certain products, taxing earnings from your hard work and supporting causes you don’t approve of.  It is far more important that I stand in opposition to that than have to associate with some one worrying about a god. 

And no matter haw many laws the republicans pass they will never force me to believe in some deity.  My brain can not be subjugated.  My means of earning a living can be and my choices of how I spend the fruits of my labor can be. 

Also I’m pretty certain that Barry and his boys in the white house consider me just as big of an enemy for my beliefs in economic freedom and individual rights as the average republican does for rolling my eyes at their god. 

(To preempt the obvious counterpoints: I know that there are many republicans who are lousy at maintaining a laissez faire government but the worst are still better than the average democrat.  The contraception argument is a red herring because it is ludicrous to think that not wanting to force a priest by law to give away free condems equates to outlawing safe sex.  Abortion is either killing a human or not a human.  Find an objective point at which a fetus becomes a person, draw the line there and I’ll support you.)

awe but the democrats are worse 

because you follow the democrat talking points like a religious nut follows the bible

And of course there is a big disconnect between local (town) Republicans and Federal, I wouldn’t vote for any GOP presidential candidate since Bob Dole and maybe as far as Gerald Ford before him. Town politics though I only support Republicans, they are the ones who don’t try to control my life, honestly they just want to keep taxes and spending and regulation of business and behavior down. I agree that atheists are far more likely to hate you for being Republican than Republican’s are for you being Atheist, they just don’t care really. Maybe in the bible belt but in New England they’ll accept you just fine.
Vote Republican Local and State, Vote Green or Dem Federal and keep it all in check.

I’m sure you know that’s not true, nowhere in the first amendment does it mention anything about “separation of church and state”. The first amendment is in place to protect religious groups from persecution, not to protect the government from religious groups.

Doing more than those in the past doesn’t mean he did all that he could or should have.

Supporting the party and supporting a cancerous addition to the party platform introduced by Southern Strategy Democrat castoffs, are two very different things. Fighting against theocracy within the Party is the best thing you can do to support the Republican party. It is these theocratic tendencies by crazy christian subverts, that are bringing the party down in the first place.

When I left my faith, I realized many of my political points were based on that faith. When that all fell away, I saw the GOP for the theocratic authoritarian party it was. So I looked into the Democrats. Well, they were just as authoritarian as the Republicans, just through different means. So I considered myself a socially liberal/fiscally conservative independent. Then I found /r/Libertarian and I identify far more with that than anything else.